Cowshed

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Thanks Dave, Stockwood's columns are always an interesting read.

I certainly agree that being aware of your own cognitive biases can help you to make better decisions in any walk of life.

I take his point that games are played with System 1 thinking but would argue that for the best teams at least the ability to repeat actions automatically is the result of the System 2 thinking that goes into coaching - see Pep for instance.

The role of analytics is arguably to inform System 2 thinking and perhaps those who dismiss analytics tend to be System 1 thinkers.

System one is the result of two at any level. Training is the creation of skill. Skill is performed on demand, and is frequently subconscious, its flow state, its unconscious competence. This is an aim of training I's where we attempt to Internalise training by Integrated Intense training. The training becomes internalised to a degree where the brain creates football memories, the more we train the more the memories become permanent and myelination occurs improving the memory and its neural pathways leading to our brain from its training to instantly respond to the football patterns it sees on the pitch, moving our body to relation distances to the ball, the play etc, and the performance of skill.  

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Another article…this time written by Starboy himself!  Is there no end to his talents!

Can’t believe that his family had to pay for the flights (Southampton) and flights and hotels (Bournemouth).  Their loss!!!

There is the expectation within a timescale (24mths?) players live in the vicinity of the academy. Southampton do provide assistance with relocation to live within that radius. They are also a club that provides private schooling, which continues if a player leaves their academy for a year. 

1 hour ago, Mr Hankey said:

Calm down fella, think you had a late night here, my comment was based on the way Madrid allowed him to play in the first leg. He’s a very good defender, which is why he’s at Man City.

John Stones is playing in midfield.  

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

The way this announced made it sound like something new, but on re-reading it seems it's just a different version to the one that we were using prior?

Bristol City were using trackers from stats sport. 

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

What do our coaching and stats fraternity on here know about this tech. A good choice for the club?

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/city-partner-with-sports-performance-powerhouse-catapult/

Catapult was formerly playertek. I have used the standard GPS tracking products from what was playertek. I have a mixed opinion of their standard products, they were limited, and not always efficient.

Bristol City won't be using just standard. 

..

37 minutes ago, spudski said:

Just checked...16, seventeen in July. Sounds like he has a good engine on him.

He was at Bristol Inner City till 14. He has played up years and down. His progress from BIC to now is remarkable. 

On 26/04/2023 at 17:39, Percy Pig said:

But the assessment process is in house. It is referees assessing referees. In any other field self governance is treated with caution and additional scrutiny.

I did not assert that it was. You've completely misread the sentence, you do that a lot. Is that a deliberate strawman tactic? 

The point is that your claim that refereeing standards can only improve because there are demotions and promotions is warped logic. 

If the pool is poor then the baseline for what qualifies as elite is going to be lower. That's pretty basic statistics. Promoting and demoting does not drive up performance or diminish it. 

In the other thread about refereeing standards a quote attributed to Howard Webb stated that he didn't want to hinder a referee imposing his personality on a game. (That's paraphrased of course). That to me is the root of the problem. You cannot have consistency if you encourage one referee to interpret the rules differently to another. 

Indeed, which is why the caveat of nobody expects perfection is routinely applied to this conversation. However to book a player for time wasting on one team and then not apply the same punishment to the opposing team for 5 worse offences is nothing to do with the game being inconsistent. That is an unfair and imbalanced application of the rules. 

They are there every week. Do you actually watch professional football much? I know you coach/coached and I'm presuming you ref at grassroots. It's there every week. The quote again attributed to Howard Webb is "consistency within a game". I see inconsistency in nearly every game I watch, be that City every week or pretty much every televised game.

We is the sport of football. Nobody here enjoys the substandard officiating. I would be delighted if it was at a good standard. I want it to improve. I've tried to provide a solution based argument rather than just calling each individual referee shit. I don't think they are, I think they are failed by the system above them. By Webb, by the FA. 

First and foremost the governing body and the PGMOL Leadership. 

There is an us and them created because there is no accountability or acknowledgment that a problem exists. You are a perfect example of that. Total denial of a problem and a lot of deflection. I don't care about an individual referee being demoted. It's irrelevant. I care about the top of the profession acknowledging a problem and taking steps to fix it. They don't and therefore they won't. And the consequence of that is frustration that will manifest itself in anger. 

As someone else said, the issue is systemic. Until its acknowledged it will remain that way. 

I will answer at a later date, but in the meantime.

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

I know very little about the club, other than various fans from both teams know each other.

Would a game against them be helpful or useful? By that I mean is their style of play similar to a Championship side, is the standard equivalent and all that sort of thing.

A trip to Tilburg, makes more sense than going to Latvia etc.   

Dutch football is different to English football or was. Many teams in England use models of play that are Dutch like.  Burnley played like a team from the Netherlands. English football has undoubtedly been influenced by the Netherlands. Our national youth development and academies are again undoubtedly influenced by the Netherlands. 

Bristol City FC have been formerly approached, and evidently its a non starter. 

1 hour ago, the1stknowle said:

I used 'mass' once in my original point. Hardly 'a lot'. But not really the point.

Look, if you are saying that the only explanation for any more than two 'outliers' (I think you are using the term incorrectly in this sentence btw) is, by implication, a 'conspiracy', and therefore, even though I have never used the word, I must have meant that, then we can leave the conversation there. It's a point that is tough to respond to when I fully agree that there is no conspiracy, just poor standards in refereeing. To make that point doesn't have to be abuse. It doesn't have to be personal. It doesn't even have to be a failing of the individual referee. In fact, if it is multiple referees turning in bad performances, then it is a systemic failure, not a personal one. That won't be fixed by ignoring it and shielding bad decisions from legitimate criticism, any more than it will be fixed by abusing individual referees. 

People have suggested that the number of penalties BCFC receive is an indication of refereeing poor performance. This poor performance anomaly is peculiar to BCFC. That was the measure other used. I would suggest that this is a peculiar outlier. Its not a measurement of refereeing poor performance. One, twice, can be errors (performance) but not for the measured period.  Poor performance cannot only be peculiar to only one team using penalties as the metric.

Refs are not turning in poor performances for only one team.

If a ref turns in multiple poor performances they are demoted, they lose their employment, and there is list of refs waiting to join the pro ref ranks. 

2 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

The stats are collated and interpreted by PGMOL, who have a vested interest in claiming standards are improving. 

It isn't independent or unbiased. 

If the standard of refereeing is poor across the board then the level required to be the best drops. If there aren't enough referees of the appropriate standard then according to your logic we wouldn't have any referees at the highest level. Clearly the "baseline" has to be fluid. 

If you honestly believe that the standard of officiating is being raised I don't know what to say to you. 

Now, the issue isn't the individual referees, it is the interpretation of the laws that has been allowed. The promotion of "personality". If we are to get to a point of consistency, which is the only thing Nige and others have ever really asked for, then the laws need to be black and white. 

That's the thing that needs addressing. The refereeing profession's one role is to consistently and fairly apply the laws of the game to each match. That isn't happening under any metrics. A foul one minute isn't the next. Nobody demands perfection, but nobody should excuse the illogical and inconsistent application of the rules we have seen at the pro level over recent seasons. To do so is to promote and encourage incompetence, drive division and abuse and ultimately lead to a us and them mentality.

The problem, as it ever was, lies with the leadership of the profession. 

 

Stats are collated by various bodies. IFAB are the overseeing body. As pointed out when a league standard drops they do intervene. 

The standard of refereeing is not poor across the board. It cannot be. Refs can go up and down levels based upon performance. 

The interpretation of laws is down to IFAB, FA's and the PGMOL adhere to the guidance IFAB provide. I don't understand what you mean by the promotion of personality.

Laws are consistently applied to a game that isn't consistent. You are referring to metrics. What metrics are you using to demonstrate that laws are not being applied fairly to each match? 

What illogical and inconsistent application of rules are you referring to? Do you have the stats for your assertion? 

You are going to realms of we, I don't know who your we is. Incompetence is not encouraged. Could you explain how the refereeing structure encourages incompetence? Incompetent refs swill be fired. Competency is a pre requisite of being a ref.

What Leadership are you referring to? The FA? The PGMOL? IFAB that utilises EUFA/FIFA?

Regarding abuse. If people think there is an us and them, they should reflect on their behaviour. 

34 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I think most of us would disagree with that tbh.

There are people on this thread who would disagree. Including those who have been corrected over their understanding of the game. 

You disagree, ok. Do you know what the evaluation process is? The process rewards the attainment of standards. Its linear, to progress individuals have to improve. That is a process of evaluation that raises standards at each refereeing level.

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

By the bad decisions they make.

 

So anecdotal. 

PMGOL refs are judged on the decisions they make. For every game over the season. There is a merit league. Appointments are linked to merit. Its evaluation based on stats. Not enough merit, out they go. And in come those who are progressing. Its a high performance culture.  

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

If you think that the pro refs we see in PL and EFL are performing to the required level, I think you’ve set the bar too low.  I suspect the PGMOL have too.

 

A level that is equivalent to European peers and monitored by the PMGOL, the FA, and IFAB. The bar isn't low. PGMOL refs display a elite national standard. If they did not IFAB intervene to raise the standard to expectation.

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

All about opinions.  Yours is polar opposite to mine.  Hey ho.

The last part regarding the PGOML x IFAB is not an opinion. IFAB do intervene and have, when they feel refs here are not consistently interpreting the rules consistently to their national standard. 

Just now, 1960maaan said:

I honestly think that the years of abuse they get at a starting level, youth and Sunday mornings, puts loads of potential Refs off.
Smaller pool means less choice. There has to be an elite level, that just means they are the best of what you have to pick from. 
 

Yes. The majority of refs the game is recruiting (4/5) are under 18. The majority of  those refs give up in two years. 

Here is a why. 

The FA put children refs in purple tops, and yellow socks to identify they are children. It does not stop what is child abuse. 

Regarding small pool. Yes there is. There are also waiting lists to progress up the ladder. Refs have to display continuous personal development to go through the tiers. At elite level for what are six figure salaries there is a lot of competition. Its very difficult to reach that elite level. The evaluation process drives standards up.  

14 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 

”the pick of a bad bunch”

Seems much more apt….imho.

There is so much room for improvement in their performances.

If refs do not improve they do not progress through the process to get to what are elite levels. So how does the process create this collective bad bunch? How are you measuring that? 

3 hours ago, Percy Pig said:

Now some slippery slope. 

You're a critical thinking case study.

Do you think that the standard of officiating at the pro level is acceptable? What accountability is there for poor performance? Do you think refereeing is a consistent and improving profession? 

 

 

 

Refs are demoted if the fall below appropriate levels. Refereeing as a profession is only attainable by improvement. Refs need to acquire assessed and marked standards x physical tests. Refs at level 3/2a/2b/1 are assessed at evert match.   

To reach the elite level of referee has to display elite levels of refereeing ability.  

23 hours ago, luke_bristol said:

Do you think this is incompetence or the referees doing a good job?

Do you think that is an example of referees displaying incompetence towards solely one football team? 

On 24/04/2023 at 17:25, spudski said:

NP is frustrated by the regular inconsistencies and mixed messages when being  explained in-game decisions.

As for respect by players on the pitch, isn't it a reflection of society in general these days? Take away discipline in the home and schools, and consequences for actions...is it any surprise? 

I get the impression NP has lost all respect for the referees and authorities they belong to. 

Constant inconsistency with decisions in games, the whole penalty saga,  inconsistent explanations or no explanations. 

It's probably taken its toll. 

Im not saying either are right. 

 

In  regards to your question. No I do not think it is. Football is a culture to its itself. Psychologically we experience things from football we do not in wider life. What we see in football is an accepted culture. It is accepted that we can criticise and intimidate officials. That we would not behave similarly in our local corner shop. Football the game here is not a parallel to normal life. Football has a culture of not respecting referees hence the respect campaign and those banners displayed around kids football matches. 

You get the impression that NP has lost all respect for refs. All of them? He should be reflecting on what he can control and his non negotiables.

The laws of the game state refs do not have to explain decisions. Their decisions are final. If he does not like this he can lobby the FA, who then can if they see fit to contact IFAB to see if they can accommodate whatever it is Nigel Pearson wants. He may also want to provide his dossier on how Bristol City are being, and only Bristol City are being treated inconsistently consistently. Referee performances are scrutinised, data is cross referenced and these refs who are treating only Bristol City will stick out as statistical anomalies.

If its taking its toll, he should be self reflecting, get Bill Beswick in, one of Mr Beswick's approaches is to use evidence bases to provide clarity, those stats. Evidence combats bias, bias that can cloud judgement and have a negative affect on emotions and decision making.  

23 hours ago, the1stknowle said:

Conspiracy is your word. You can have a mass of decisions go against you without a conspiracy. 
 

in fact, because it’s NOT a conspiracy is the point. It’s a lot of objectively bad decisions that warrant genuine criticism. It’s a separate issue from the abuse of refs driving them from the game. n

You have used mass and a lot, then objectively bad, Being objective how are you measuring this? A mass of bad decisions cannot attach themselves to just one club over differing data. One measurement, or two yes as outliers, but all the games decisions versus a league? No. There there has to be explanation. Rank bad luck wont be it .. Leaving? Conspiracy, their all out to get BCFC? No again.  

PMGOL Professional refs who go through a arduous process to become elite referees according to Mr Pearson do not know what they are doing.  Mr Pearson critique and antipathy towards refs is not objective, its clearly based on opinion and feelings. 

6 minutes ago, the1stknowle said:

Where is the abuse? I agree with your general point - and think it applies to some managers, like Warnock (who loads of people on here seem to think is good for the game but I think is pernicious precisely because of the way he treats referees).

But that is different from a very legitimate criticism of the mass of decisions that have gone against us over last few years and the shambolic admin process Nige describes in the article. 

Having elite referees mic'd and with a gopro is a good solution to try to change culture of abuse. Players and many managers would not look good with current behaviour.  Nige is not one of those. If anything, considering some of the penalty decisions, he's been pretty sanguine towards refs.

 

Abuse is bad effect. The bad effect at the games zenith's permeates through football's pyramid.

Mr Pearson legitimate criticisms are opinions. PMGOL ref efficiency favourably with any league in Europe. Ref efficiency is scrutinised and fed back to IFAB, who on occasions will direct FA's etc to intervene in how rules are applied consistently.

Mr Pearson threw in the good old don't know football. Refs cannot progress up the ladder without knowing football. Managers and coaches frequently don't know the rules, and frequently don't know reffing. The consistency argument is used again and again, and by Nigel Pearson. Mr Pearson would loathe refs being consistent over a game that is not. Each scenario is not the same. Game temperature requires differing intervention, and at times differing sanction, the last ten minutes of a game will not be the same as the first,  player behaviour and that match temperature ebbs and flows. 

Masses of decisions .. There is no conspiracy. 

27 minutes ago, beaverface said:

To be honest, and I'm truly with you, I'd hope that it would stamp things out, however there will be situations that will be subjective like we get with Var. One persons interpretation of something being offensive isn't the same as the next person. 

Also, how can you be sure who said what if a mic just picks up someone swearing? it could be any number of players rather than the one the ref is asking to speak to.

Some people also don't like having their integrity questioned - look at the Tony Adams\David Elleray example - the ref took a harsh dislike to being called a cheat. Calling someone a cheat isn't foul or abusive language, but the referee might really take it to heart and book or send off a player whilst the rest of us listening may think it's a very harsh call.

All in all, I'm sure it would be better to hear the refs, I just feel that extra baggage will come if that happened, and that extra baggage will be interpreted in different ways by different people watching on.

Calling a official a cheat is dissent. The sanction will be a yellow, or red card. That is not harsh. 

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

He’s spot on isn’t he.

Mr Pearson has his perception. You like a stat, how would you measure turmoil? How would you measure the whole thing needs a shake up? What is the it Mr Pearson refers to?

He is criticising refs as irritating, inconsistent, not good enough. All of them? 

Nigel Pearson is sick to the back teeth ... Refs are sick to the back teeth in this Country of the treatment they are receiving. The game is losing by wide margins more refs than it is recruiting. Refs are being attacked, verbally abused consistently across the Country and there is a connection between the disrespect refs receive at the top of the game and the real evidence based turmoil at its grass roots. A grass roots that feeds refs up the pyramid. 

So, no he is not spot on. Mr Pearson may want to think about his words and their consequences. Refs are human, they deserve respect, when you deligitimise and dehumanise refs its become easier to abuse them, including the child refs who are also on the receiving end of abuse .. Mr Pearson is part of that. 

9 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

Further to my point above about the advantages of getting to the byline, especially on the left when attacking, a right footed player will cut inside onto their preferred foot when nearing the box. All this does is close down the space as all the defenders are moved closer together.

Unless there is an overlapping left back to pass to, the better move is to stay wide, use the space get to the byline.

This isn't a criticism of City, we see it in the Prem too. Defenders love to pack the box, the aim should be to move them around, draw them out. To be fair we have done that bit fairly well lately but the final ball, as mentioned has been poor.

Again you may want to consider variables. Playing a right footed player on the left could increase crease opportunity. Techy speak inversion frequently means if the player cuts in on his stronger right foot he will be attacking defenders weaker defending left foot, which can increase crossing opportunity. Inversion also alters passing patterns, patterns that can become more effective as the speed and efficiency increases.  I used could and can, the players skills will obviously effect the efficiency.

10 hours ago, pongo88 said:

Undoubtedly true, but is it true because a lot of players can’t cross the ball properly? It’s definitely the case with City as most crosses go low to an opposition player. 

A player could cross a ball adeptly and be consistently unsuccessful. What is the player aiming at? What are their skills? What are the skills of the opponent and what areas are they skilled at defending? Teams dropping off deny crossing opportunities. Teams playing CDM's/holding midfielders double up in wide positions forcing crosses from deeper less effective positions.

There are a lot of variables to consider.

Teams can suddenly outperform their open play crossing norms at set pieces if they have an outlier, or two to drop the ball on. Bristol City - Aden Flint!  

8 hours ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

I agree in standard common sense it isn’t, but when you see it given x amount of times, and then it isn’t.. as we all know, a major problem with consistency.

There is no major problem with consistency. Football is not consistent. You don't see that it given x amount of times because the it is not consistent. In this situation the ref has variables to consider, in any situation there are variables = It is inconsistent.

Two scenarios:

• Multiple players challenging for the ball, players jumping and jostling and the ball unintentionally strikes an arm of one of the competing players in the penalty area.
• Player jumps for the ball unchallenged with his arms in an unnatural position and the ball strikes an arm in the penalty area. 

The consequences of the ball hitting the arm will be different in these two scenarios because refs generally will apply rules consistently. 

22 minutes ago, Littlesh*t said:

Those pictures not one of them is using an elbow. Do I think they need to clamp down on players going at officials? 100% yes.

Am I glad the ref didn't get punished? Also yes

But do I think if a player had done the same he would have been punished ? Again yes.

 

My point is officials are not only there to officiate but also set standards. What pisses me off is that players get pulled up on the most ridiculous little thing and would have definitely been done for what the ref did. 

A player cannot touch an official. A should not attempt to grab an official, a standard players, and Liverpool clearly break. Your question does not make sense. There is no same. Officials do not behave as players do, as the Liverpool players do, and as Robertson in particular does. There is no law in the game for a sanction for a official coming into contact with a player because its wholly unnecessary, it does not happen.

If you are referring to player on player? Would a player be punished? There was no violent conduct, so no red. Excessive force? No. This leaves a caution. The scenario is wholly different. 

7 hours ago, Littlesh*t said:

It's still double standards if a player gets punished for something a ref doesn't.

If I walked down the street and elbowed someone because they touched me on the shoulder would that be OK?

These are Liverpool players in the same game. The officials do not behave in this manner.

In reply to your question you removed the context. Nobody is going to challenge you and attempt to grab you in the street in a kit and shin pads. It is not a parallel. 

On 14/04/2023 at 07:16, Littlesh*t said:

As much as I agree with the comments it does seem a bit of double standards. I am pretty sure if Robertson had touched a player and he reacyed like that he would now be serving a ban for it.

It is not a double standard. You will not find a standard where officials get into players personal space, grab them, insult them etc. This is a standard of the players.